Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[wenglund]

Could you explain how Alma 32 establishes the test as a reliable one? I don't see how it does. I see that it gives more instructions to add to your test, but doesn't give justification at all.

I think you may want to re-read Alma 32 (start at verse 20). It goes beyond giving instruction and clearly points out the justification. Verses 20 - 27 is where Moroni 10 comes somewhat into play. Verse 28 provides some instruction, but goes on through verse 34 providing the justification. Verses 35 through the end of the chapter expound upon the justification. I am not sure how you missed this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

Your acceptance of Mormon doctrine and revelation is justified by your personal experience. But by claiming your justification to be a valid one, it also justifies the acceptance of what can't be considered Mormon doctrine or revelation. If the justification is equally valid for two differing beliefs, then we can't prefer one over the other.

Except that I don't know of any other religion that has a Moroni test. If there is one please enlighten us. I was a non-member and I have associated many years after becoming LDS with non-members. No one is expected to apply the same test to their faith as Moroni proposes. Most often they are "converted" on a momentary event and accept Christ in their life. I don't know anyone who prays over the Bible to see if it is true. They accept the teachings which they have become familiar with as true. I am not questioning that their faith is real but really, they don't accept their church as true as most of these people accept that any church that teaches Christ is ok, except the Mormon Church.

[Montgomery Price]

I think you may want to re-read Alma 32 (start at verse 20). It goes beyond giving instruction and clearly points out the justification. Verses 20 - 27 is where Moroni 10 comes somewhat into play. Verse 28 provides some instruction, but goes on through verse 34 providing the justification. Verses 35 through the end of the chapter expound upon the justification. I am not sure how you missed this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see assertions and descriptions... no justification. What exactly in these verses establish the test reliable? You're going to have to spell it out because if I try to I'll likely be accused of misunderstanding, because I don't see anything that would lead me to believe the test is reliable.

[Montgomery Price]

Except that I don't know of any other religion that has a Moroni test. If there is one please enlighten us. I was a non-member and I have associated many years after becoming LDS with non-members. No one is expected to apply the same test to their faith as Moroni proposes. Most often they are "converted" on a momentary event and accept Christ in their life. I don't know anyone who prays over the Bible to see if it is true. They accept the teachings which they have become familiar with as true. I am not questioning that their faith is real but really, they don't accept their church as true as most of these people accept that any church that teaches Christ is ok, except the Mormon Church.

I'm sure you are aware that there is not only one uniform religion who believes the BOM was inspired. But that aside, it doesn't matter whether another religion uses Moroni's Promise. What matters is that Moroni's Promise can't be preferred over any other spiritual epistemic tests that have lead others to differing and often incompatible conclusions.

[CV75]

Well, I'd invite you to explain what you would consider to be a legitimate contradiction. What defines a proper and improper course?

But even more problematic, a strict contradiction is not necessary to leave us at a spiritual impasse. Mormonism is brought into question once we discover that every justification we use for accepting revealed Mormon doctrine (personal experience, prayer, Moroni's Promise, etc.), can be used to justify the acceptance of what is not revealed Mormon doctrine. The two not necessarily being mutually exclusive. If we can't prefer one over the other, then the fact that it has been "revealed" as superior is moot.

Then the purpose of Moroni's Promise is not to gain any new knowledge, but to reinforce prior knowledge and to "stay true"?

There is no legitimate contradiction with this approach. There is only one answer to the question. If a person receives contradicting answers, he is not understanding or following the directions. If two different people receive different answers, one or both are not understanding or following the directions. The proper course is laid out in the verses, so an improper course would be a deviation from that.

The OP was about justifying the approach taken in determining the truth of the Book of Mormon and true doctrine. Examples of God’s mercy in the past justify the application of Moroni’s method for accepting these additional examples of His mercy. Anyone promoting a method for knowing additional examples of His mercy would typically refer to prior examples, as Moroni did. I cannot think of an instance of someone using examples of God’s mercy to promote an alternative method for determining the truth of the Book of Mormon, or not referring to examples of God’s mercy in promoting an approach similar to Moroni’s.

Since it provides new knowledge (that the Book of Mormon is true, and that it leads to the additional knowledge that follows that), it also reinforces the prior knowledge it builds upon. So the purposes of Mornoni's Promise are both to gain new knowledge and reinforce prior knowledge.

[Pahoran]

I'm sure you are aware that there is not only one uniform religion who believes the BOM was inspired. But that aside, it doesn't matter whether another religion uses Moroni's Promise. What matters is that Moroni's Promise can't be preferred over any other spiritual epistemic tests that have lead others to differing and often incompatible conclusions.

For example?

Since "credulity" and "gullibility" are not part of my Mormon experience (and appear to represent nothing more than an unwarranted assumption of superiority on the part of those who attribute them to us) I am inclined to question unsupported assertions about my faith from someone whose sole qualification to make them is that he knows how to use big words.

So you will be pleased to tell us what "spiritual epistemic tests" you have in mind, and how you conclude that they are the equal of Moroni's Promise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kevin Christensen]

I've long compared the values described in Alma 32 the "experiment upon the words" with those employed for paradigm choice identified as used in pragmatic practice in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as:

Accuracy of Key Predictions (cf. Alma 32:26-27, 35)

Probably the single most prevalent claim advanced by proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis. . . . Claims of this sort . . . succeed if the new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor.52

Kuhn suggests that the accuracy of key predictions is not a static objective measure but:

1. comparative between competing paradigms and nature,

2. relative to the importance the community assigns to the problems that each paradigm solves or fails to solve, and

3. weighted by the degree of precision attained by each theory.

Comprehensiveness and Coherence(Alma 32:34)

The new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.81

The scientist aims at the comprehensive unification of separate laws, the systematic interrelation of theories, the portrayal of underlying similarities in apparently diverse phenomena.82

Fruitfulness (Alma 32:36-41)

Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.91

Simplicity and Aesthetics(Alma 32:28, 42)

Simplicity is sought both as a practical advantage and as an intellectual ideal. This includes not only simplicity of mathematical form, conceptual simplicity, and a minimum of independent assumptions, but also an aesthetic element.94

Future Promise (Alma 32:41)

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.104

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=7&num=2&id=193

I should have also included Kuhn's mention of "puzzle generation and solution" as important for paradigm choice.

And there are the Biblical criteria for seeing truth, which I summarize in my FAIR paper on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets as:

•Be interested

•Listen with Purposeful Intent: Seeking Knowledge of God

•Study with Open Minds and with Faith (where faith is hope for that which is not seen)

•Examine the works

•Listen to all the witnesses (not selecting to justify a desired result)

•Consider the credentials and motives of the authorities and witnesses involved

•Be as concerned with measuring yourself as with measuring the prophets

•Receive the prophets and their followers for what they are, not requiring them to be something else

•Pray

•Persist whatever the cost

Taken together, these show the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. You show willingness to risk hour desires and preconceptions.

All of this seems to me a lot more interesting that singing "just believe."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Deborah]

What matters is that Moroni's Promise can't be preferred over any other spiritual epistemic tests that have lead others to differing and often incompatible conclusions.

Since Moroni's promise applies to the BOM, why would it matter what other spiritual epistemic tests people use to make their choices?

[wenglund]

I see assertions and descriptions... no justification. What exactly in these verses establish the test reliable?

First of all, there isn't just one test, there are two (Mornoi 10 and Alma 32). Each in its own way tests the results of the other, and therein is one level of justification. Also, each of the tests establishes their own justification based on their internal logic. Finally, in a pragmatic sense, the tests, individually and in combination, establish their justification in that they work. This is as much as may reasonably be expected of tests in matters of faith.

(Please see also Kevin Christensen's excellent posts above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 28, 2011 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

A person finds a copy of the Book of Mormon and reads it. This person has never heard of the LDS Church and does not know any Mormons. The non-translated materials had been removed from the book, so the person has no way of associating it with an organized religion. After reading Moroni 4, he puts it to the test and receives a witness of the Spirit that it is true.

Is this a legitimate test?

Bernard

Edited June 28, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

I've long compared the values described in Alma 32 the "experiment upon the words" with those employed for paradigm choice identified as used in pragmatic practice in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as:

Accuracy of Key Predictions (cf. Alma 32:26-27, 35)

Probably the single most prevalent claim advanced by proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis. . . . Claims of this sort . . . succeed if the new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor.52

Kuhn suggests that the accuracy of key predictions is not a static objective measure but:

1. comparative between competing paradigms and nature,

2. relative to the importance the community assigns to the problems that each paradigm solves or fails to solve, and

3. weighted by the degree of precision attained by each theory.

Comprehensiveness and Coherence(Alma 32:34)

The new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.81

The scientist aims at the comprehensive unification of separate laws, the systematic interrelation of theories, the portrayal of underlying similarities in apparently diverse phenomena.82

Fruitfulness (Alma 32:36-41)

Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.91

Simplicity and Aesthetics(Alma 32:28, 42)

Simplicity is sought both as a practical advantage and as an intellectual ideal. This includes not only simplicity of mathematical form, conceptual simplicity, and a minimum of independent assumptions, but also an aesthetic element.94

Future Promise (Alma 32:41)

The issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. . . . A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.104

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

I should have also included Kuhn's mention of "puzzle generation and solution" as important for paradigm choice.

And there are the Biblical criteria for seeing truth, which I summarize in my FAIR paper on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets as:

•Be interested

•Listen with Purposeful Intent: Seeking Knowledge of God

•Study with Open Minds and with Faith (where faith is hope for that which is not seen)

•Examine the works

•Listen to all the witnesses (not selecting to justify a desired result)

•Consider the credentials and motives of the authorities and witnesses involved

•Be as concerned with measuring yourself as with measuring the prophets

•Receive the prophets and their followers for what they are, not requiring them to be something else

•Pray

•Persist whatever the cost

Taken together, these show the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. You show willingness to risk hour desires and preconceptions.

All of this seems to me a lot more interesting that singing "just believe."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I think that understanding Kuhn and those in his camp, who are many, is precisely what is missing here in those who appear to affirm Scientism.

Kuhn's approach to the history and philosophy of science has been described as focusing on conceptual issues: what sorts of ideas were thinkable at a particular time? What sorts of intellectual options and strategies were available to people during a given period? What types of lexicons and terminology were known and employed during certain epochs? Stressing the importance of not attributing modern modes of thought to historical actors, Kuhn's book argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities.

The scientific vocabulary or language game is only one context for seeing the universe, and largely ignores what individuals find valuable in their lives. Science cannot account for an individual's need for freedom, his subjective perceptions, and his need to create his own coherent view of the world which includes science itself.

In other words- science is not self-reflective and so always will exist in a larger context of human knowledge. Scientific revolutions always occur by re-framing old data into new contexts which are not generated by scientists themselves. The creators of the new contexts are often poets and writers who generate the "new lexicons" the new ways of seeing, which then the scientists shape the old data into.

The Copernican revolution was not based on data- it was based on what was happening to the view of Man as center of the universe, and was as much a sociological phenomenon as anything else.

Science is but one discipline in a much larger world context than those who believe in Scientism can even conceive.

[mfbukowski]

double post

Edited June 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

If two different people receive different answers, one or both are not understanding or following the directions.

I am considering many different spiritual epistemic tests, not just those tests which attempt to follow the BOM's instructions.There can be contradictions between the results acquired from Moroni's Promise and say, the divinations of a mystic. How can you prefer a personal experience specific to the doctrines and revelations of Mormonism (such as the directions given in Moroni's Promise) over any other claim that similar personal experience gained spiritual knowledge of what can't be considered Mormon doctrine or revelation?

The OP was about justifying the approach taken in determining the truth of the Book of Mormon and true doctrine. Examples of God’s mercy in the past justify the application of Moroni’s method for accepting these additional examples of His mercy. Anyone promoting a method for knowing additional examples of His mercy would typically refer to prior examples, as Moroni did. I cannot think of an instance of someone using examples of God’s mercy to promote an alternative method for determining the truth of the Book of Mormon, or not referring to examples of God’s mercy in promoting an approach similar to Moroni’s.

Since it provides new knowledge (that the Book of Mormon is true, and that it leads to the additional knowledge that follows that), it also reinforces the prior knowledge it builds upon. So the purposes of Mornoni's Promise are both to gain new knowledge and reinforce prior knowledge.

OK. Makes sense.

[Montgomery Price]

For example?

Since "credulity" and "gullibility" are not part of my Mormon experience (and appear to represent nothing more than an unwarranted assumption of superiority on the part of those who attribute them to us) I am inclined to question unsupported assertions about my faith from someone whose sole qualification to make them is that he knows how to use big words.

So you will be pleased to tell us what "spiritual epistemic tests" you have in mind, and how you conclude that they are the equal of Moroni's Promise.

Regards,

Pahoran

I conclude that they are equal to Moroni's Promise because the justifications given for Moroni's Promise can be used to justify any belief. There are countless examples of those who report spiritual experiences which they simply "know" are reliable, but are not compatible with what has been supposed revealed to lead anyone to the Celestial Kingdom. What arguments establish Moroni's Promise as reliable that won't establish any other generic spiritual experience as acceptable?The only justifications I've heard for Moroni's Promise are along the lines of "Well, the God I experience led me here", "I just know [insert what can't be considered Mormon doctrine or revelation] in my heart", "I don't need to justify it, it's my own personal experience". If we accept these justifications as valid, how do we prefer one result over another? Until we have reason to, we must treat them equally.

[mfbukowski]

First of all, there isn't just one test, there are two (Mornoi 10 and Alma 32). Each in its own way tests the results of the other, and therein is one level of justification. Also, each of the tests establishes their own justification based on their internal logic. Finally, in a pragmatic sense, the tests, individually and in combination, establish their justification in that they work. This is as much as may reasonably be expected of tests in matters of faith.

(Please see also Kevin Christensen's excellent posts above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The fact that "they work" is of prime importance; the point of view which science precisely ignores- and it is the job of science to ignore- is the subjective point of view. Yet, this is the point of view which is most important in our lives.

No one can define my values for me; it is up to me to weigh the "data" as I see it both subjectively and objectively and create for myself a world view which works for me and allows me my own self-determination. And yes, of course feelings, "hunches" "my gut" are all legitimately factored into the equation- because it is IN that subjective point of view where I "live". Only I am in my skin, and I know that science is only one way of understanding the universe. and for most decisions in my life, science is totally irrelevant.

Whom I marry, where I go to school, what I believe about most things- even what I or anyone else believe about science- are seen from a subjective point of view- from my perspective.

Science has its place, but to believe it gives us any important information about how to live our lives is just fantasy- and those who believe in Scientism (note I say "believe in" - because that is what it is- a world view among other world views- a religion among religions- ) I would wager do not actually live their lives along scientific principles.

Who uses scientific principles to decide which posts to answer and which not to answer? Who uses scientific principles to decide whom to marry? Who decides if it is time to put Mom in a home based on scientific principles? Who decides what political party to join, which religion to criticize, how one feels about gay marriage, which school is the best for me, why I should or should not live in Phoenix, what color to paint the living room, if I should take up yoga or not, or go on a diet, or if I need to go to the cleaners today or tomorrow, what laws to break and what kind of tax return I should file, and how much risk am I comfortable with, in investing?

Neither is the choice of what beliefs give meaning to one's life. So if you are believer in Scientism, welcome. Just know that my religion is different than yours, and what I find "works" for me is not necessarily what you find "works" for you.

But don't call me "irrational" because by your own criteria, you make decisions every day which are every bit as "irrational" as mine, and from my point of view, you are only seeing half the universe- the objective half.

[Montgomery Price]

Since Moroni's promise applies to the BOM, why would it matter what other spiritual epistemic tests people use to make their choices?

Because those separate tests lead them to conclusions separate from what has been supposedly revealed by the BOM... yet we can't prefer Moroni's Promise as the superior test, because the justifications given apply to any generic spiritual experience. In what way can you justify Moroni's Promise as reliable without justifying the spiritual experience which led someone to not believe in Jesus Christ?

[Xander]

The unreliability of this test can be illustrated in a couple of ways:

1) The fact that most people who take the test get different answers. I've had some folks on my mission tell me that they prayed and God told them it was false, but most of the time they told me they either felt nothing, or something negative.

2) The fact that many people receive an "answer" that is satisfactory to them, despite the fact that the Church isn't what it claims to be. If God exists, then he gave us the capacity for reason for a reason. I don't think he wants us to place things we believe via emotion or feelings, over what we can reliably know using more reliable, scientific and rational methods. The former is why people do a multiplicity of wrong things. From buying things on impulse to murdering their cheating spouse. It seems to me that emotions should be controlled not be interpreted as a gateway to the truth about anything imaginable. But within Mormonism, there seems to be this belief that the more emotional you are, the more spiritual. I was told by the person who baptized me that women don't need the priesthood because they are already more spiritual. His evidence was that they are more likely to cry in certain situations. And my experience in the Church tells me that the men try to compete with who can be the most emotional at times. Emotion is immediately interpreted as being in the presence of the spirit.

But back to the point. If I discover, via basic logical deduction, that Joseph Smith couldn't really translate Ancient documents, then there really is no reason for me to entertain the possibility that the Church is what it claims to be. Is there? And there really isn't much of a reason why I should ignore this knowledge - which is quite reliable - just because once upon a time I prayed about the Church and the missionaries told me that the good feelings I had felt was God's way of telling me the Book of Mormon was true, which meant the Church was true, which meant Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. That works both ways. If someone can find out that the BoM is fiction, or that Joseph Smith couldn't do what he said he could do, then that chain of logic clearly leads to the conclusion that the Church is not true. At least not in the sense that Mormons maintain. And why on earth would God leave the litmus test for truth within ourselves, when science had pretty much proved that the human mind can conjure up any emotion it wants to at will. The placebo effect takes over because if people want to feel something bad enough, they will. When I look back on the time I prayed about the Church, I realize that the feelings I felt were nothing unique. I got goose bumps, felt warm, etc. But were these feelings a result of my prayer or a result of my desire to receive some kind of emotional confirmation?

I think I have become a better person over the years, an one thing that people tell me is that I control my emotions much better. I feel really bad sometimes when my wife takes me to Church because there is usually someone trying to reconvert me, and most of the time these men end up crying, hugging me and bearing their testimony that it's true. That seems to be the extent of their argument most times. I feel like an absolute jerk for not crying along with them. They make me feel like I'm some kind of heartless emotion-free robot. I'm not though. I just don't feel like crying over Mormon issues like I used to. The only time I get misty is when I think of the things I miss about being a Mormon. And yes, I do miss them.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander

[Montgomery Price]

First of all, there isn't just one test, there are two (Mornoi 10 and Alma 32). Each in its own way tests the results of the other, and therein is one level of justification. Also, each of the tests establishes their own justification based on their internal logic. Finally, in a pragmatic sense, the tests, individually and in combination, establish their justification in that they work. This is as much as may reasonably be expected of tests in matters of faith.

(Please see also Kevin Christensen's excellent posts above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One test justifies the other, and each has an internal and logical structure that justifies their reliability. So, you should have no problem explaining logically why I should believe any one of the tests actually produces results that can be relied upon.

[Montgomery Price]

A person finds a copy of the Book of Mormon and reads it. This person has never heard of the LDS Church and does not know any Mormons. The non-translated materials had been removed from the book, so the person has no way of associating it with an organized religion. After reading Moroni 4, he puts it to the test and receives a witness of the Spirit that it is true.

Is this a legitimate test?

Bernard

Not yet. The only suggestion that what he considers to be the witness of the Spirit is reliable is the source in question. What establishes that what he feels is accurately described by the source he is attempting to verify?

[Pahoran]

I conclude that they are equal to Moroni's Promise

What are "they?" I asked you and you did not answer. You are being evasive.

because the justifications given for Moroni's Promise can be used to justify any belief. There are countless examples of those who report spiritual experiences which they simply "know" are reliable, but are not compatible with what has been supposed revealed to lead anyone to the Celestial Kingdom.

Then why don't you tell us what they are, instead of merely waving a hand at them?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Montgomery Price]

The fact that "they work" is of prime importance; the point of view which science precisely ignores- and it is the job of science to ignore- is the subjective point of view. Yet, this is the point of view which is most important in our lives.

No one can define my values for me; it is up to me to weigh the "data" as I see it both subjectively and objectively and create for myself a world view which works for me and allows me my own self-determination. And yes, of course feelings, "hunches" "my gut" are all legitimately factored into the equation- because it is IN that subjective point of view where I "live". Only I am in my skin, and I know that science is only one way of understanding the universe. and for most decisions in my life, science is totally irrelevant.

Whom I marry, where I go to school, what I believe about most things- even what I or anyone else believe about science- are seen from a subjective point of view- from my perspective.

Science has its place, but to believe it gives us any important information about how to live our lives is just fantasy- and those who believe in Scientism (note I say "believe in" - because that is what it is- a world view among other world views- a religion among religions- ) I would wager do not actually live their lives along scientific principles.

Who uses scientific principles to decide which posts to answer and which not to answer? Who uses scientific principles to decide whom to marry? Who decides if it is time to put Mom in a home based on scientific principles? Who decides what political party to join, which religion to criticize, how one feels about gay marriage, which school is the best for me, why I should or should not live in Phoenix, what color to paint the living room, if I should take up yoga or not, or go on a diet, or if I need to go to the cleaners today or tomorrow, what laws to break and what kind of tax return I should file, and how much risk am I comfortable with, in investing?

Neither is the choice of what beliefs give meaning to one's life. So if you are believer in Scientism, welcome. Just know that my religion is different than yours, and what I find "works" for me is not necessarily what you find "works" for you.

But don't call me "irrational" because by your own criteria, you make decisions every day which are every bit as "irrational" as mine, and from my point of view, you are only seeing half the universe- the objective half.

That we have a pragmatic reliance on subjective experiences does not establish our subjective experiences as reliable. Simply having or being restricted to subjective experience doesn't establish it as reliable. You may claim that we are missing the greater picture by preferring reliable. objective justifications for our beliefs, but there's nothing about our subjective experiences that suggests they discern what is beyond science any better than science can.

[Pahoran]

The unreliability of this test can be illustrated in a couple of ways:

1) The fact that most people who take the test get different answers. I've had some folks on my mission tell me that they prayed and God told them it was false, but most of the time they told me they either felt nothing, or something negative.

2) The fact that many people receive an "answer" that is satisfactory to them, despite the fact that the Church isn't what it claims to be. If God exists, then he gave us the capacity for reason for a reason. I don't think he wants us to place things we believe via emotion or feelings, over what we can reliably know using more reliable, scientific and rational methods. The former is why people do a multiplicity of wrong things. From buying things on impulse to murdering their cheating spouse. It seems to me that emotions should be controlled not be interpreted as a gateway to the truth about anything imaginable. But within Mormonism, there seems to be this belief that the more emotional you are, the more spiritual. I was told by the person who baptized me that women don't need the priesthood because they are already more spiritual. His evidence was that they are more likely to cry in certain situations. And my experience in the Church tells me that the men try to compete with who can be the most emotional at times. Emotion is immediately interpreted as being in the presence of the spirit.

But back to the point. If I discover, via basic logical deduction, that Joseph Smith couldn't really translate Ancient documents, then there really is no reason for me to entertain the possibility that the Church is what it claims to be. Is there? And there really isn't much of a reason why I should ignore this knowledge - which is quite reliable - just because once upon a time I prayed about the Church and the missionaries told me that the good feelings I had felt was God's way of telling me the Book of Mormon was true, which meant the Church was true, which meant Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. That works both ways. If someone can find out that the BoM is fiction, or that Joseph Smith couldn't do what he said he could do, then that chain of logic clearly leads to the conclusion that the Church is not true. At least not in the sense that Mormons maintain. And why on earth would God leave the litmus test for truth within ourselves, when science had pretty much proved that the human mind can conjure up any emotion it wants to at will. The placebo effect takes over because if people want to feel something bad enough, they will. When I look back on the time I prayed about the Church, I realize that the feelings I felt were nothing unique. I got goose bumps, felt warm, etc. But were these feelings a result of my prayer or a result of my desire to receive some kind of emotional confirmation?

I think I have become a better person over the years, an one thing that people tell me is that I control my emotions much better. I feel really bad sometimes when my wife takes me to Church because there is usually someone trying to reconvert me, and most of the time these men end up crying, hugging me and bearing their testimony that it's true. That seems to be the extent of their argument most times. I feel like an absolute jerk for not crying along with them. They make me feel like I'm some kind of heartless emotion-free robot. I'm not though. I just don't feel like crying over Mormon issues like I used to. The only time I get misty is when I think of the things I miss about being a Mormon. And yes, I do miss them.

Kevin,

We are, at the behest of the mods, all trying really really really really really hard to be nice to you; and that despite the fact that, instead of making the slightest effort at reciprocating, you are milking your "invited" status to the utmost.

I recommend, therefore, that you do not make yourself the subject of any discussion. Leading with the chin is a really bad idea, especially when your glass jaw goes all the way to the back of your skull.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Montgomery Price]

What are "they?" I asked you and you did not answer. You are being evasive.

Then why don't you tell us what they are, instead of merely waving a hand at them?

Regards,

Pahoran

I really didn't think I had to spell it out. Here's a simple example:

Jack believes in God and that this God answers prayers.

Jill believes in God and that this God answers prayers.

Jack asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jack experiences responds with a positive answer.

Jill asks God if the BOM is true, and the God Jill experiences responds with a negative answer.

What justification can be given for Jack's experience that can't be given for Jill's experience?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

That we have a pragmatic reliance on subjective experiences does not establish our subjective experiences as reliable. Simply having or being restricted to subjective experience doesn't establish it as reliable. You may claim that we are missing the greater picture by preferring reliable. objective justifications for our beliefs, but there's nothing about our subjective experiences that suggests they discern what is beyond science any better than science can.

Reliable for what purpose?

What possible scientific test would be reliable to show you what political party to join, or if this is the right time to buy silver?

[mfbukowski]

Kevin,

Ah yes, I thought I knew you.